Family Research Council Thinks Lying About Transgender Troops Is A Christian Value

In over 10 years of tracking and calling out the group, I thought I had seen the full length of its audacity. Apparently I hadn’t.

08/06/2017 06:38 pm ETUpdated
Aug 07, 2017

Mario Anzuoni / Reuters
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council leads the Pledge of Allegiance at the Republican National Convention. July 21, 2016.

The Family Research Council, in spite of all its claims of being a “Christian” organization, has no problem with spreading outright lies and distortions in its quest to stamp down on LGBTQ equality.

However, in FRC’s quest to keep it’s sacred cow Donald Trump safe in the White House, the organization is obviously picking up his main bad habit; telling lies so pathetic that it takes no effort in refuting them.

A recent Washington Update FRC put out defending Trump’s sad attempt to ban transgender men and women from the military is a perfect example. The amount of lies and misdirection the Family Research used in just two paragraphs of the post left me shocked. In over 10 years of tracking and calling out the group, I thought I had seen the full length of its audacity. Apparently I hadn’t:

Liberals have spent the last week insisting that Donald Trump’s military policy is wrong ― but they certainly haven’t come up with any compelling reasons why. While conservatives point to a laundry list of problems from the potential $3.7 billion price tag to “sensitivity” training, the Left’s only defense seems to be trotting out photos of a former Navy SEAL Christopher (now Kristin) Beck. No one argues that Beck served his country with distinction ― but he never did so as a woman. He identified as a new gender after he was discharged, and even then, didn’t publicly “come out” until two years later. As Donna Carol Voss points out in a great column for the Federalist, “6 Ridiculous Arguments in Favor of Transgender Soldiers,”it’s “disingenuous to say Beck is the first female Navy SEAL when that career ended two years before Christopher ― who was known for his beard ― transitioned to Kristin. There has never been a female Navy SEAL, only a male Navy SEAL who retired and took feminizing hormones.” Ask a liberal how Obama’s policy actually improves readiness, and they’ll respond one of two ways: with a personal story or a personal attack. Why? Because there hasn’t been a single scientifically-based, rational military argument for it. Without psychology, top brass, or even popular opinion on their side, the Left resorts to a tired playbook ― distractions and name-calling. Fox News’s Tucker Carlson found that out in his debate with New York Congressman Sean Maloney (D). Like most liberals, Maloney’s go-to justifications for Obama’s were Beck and transgender empowerment. Apparently, he thinks the military’s job isn’t winning wars but putting people on the path to self-actualization.

There are so many lies and misdirections here, I need to number them.

1. “Liberals have spent the last week insisting that Donald Trump’s military policy is wrong ― but they certainly haven’t come up with any compelling reasons why. While conservatives point to a laundry list of problems...”

It’s like I’ve said so many times before that when groups like FRC find a factoid they can use against the LGBTQ community, they will repeat it constantly regardless of said factoid being debunked. The idea that keeping transgender men and women in the military will cost over three billion dollars is not a possibility. It is a straight-up lie.

President Trump’s assertion that permitting transgender people in the armed services entails major health care costs appears to be overblown, based on estimates from the think tank RAND, which was asked by the Department of Defense to study the issue last year. Health care costs for treating active members who want to transition to another gender would increase by between $2.4 million to $8.4 million annually, RAND found. That translates to 0.04 percent to 0.13 percent of the agency’s annual spending on health care. “Our study found that the number of U.S. transgender service members who are likely to seek transition-related care is so small that a change in policy will likely have a marginal impact on health care costs and the readiness of the force,” the Rand researchers wrote.

To come up with its figure, FRC used one of its fake experts, Peter Sprigg. Sprigg, a former “professional actor” and presently a pastor, has been anointed by FRC as “Senior Fellow of Policy Studies.” Who would you trust to give the best research? Him or an organization asked by the Department of Defense to provide research?

3. “Because there hasn’t been a single scientifically-based, rational military argument for it. Without psychology, top brass, or even popular opinion on their side, the Left resorts to a tired playbook ― distractions and name-calling.”

This a major lie on so many levels, the main one will be covered in point four. But more egregiously in this point are the links FRC provides to claim that top military brass and popular opinion are not on the side of those against the ban. Both links are to articles talking about delaying the implementation of Obama’s policy allowing transgender men and women to serve openly. Neither article have anything to do with Trump’s outright ban. What’s even more brazen of FRC to use those articles is the fact that both were published in June, a month before Trump tweeted his ban.

4. The entire tone of FRC’s article is that folks against the ban can’t find any good reason to oppose it, therefore we are attacking those who support the ban or using supposedly deceptive personal stories, such as the one the group spotlighted.

Perhaps there should be some focus on groups like the Family Research Council during this debate. Who deserves our support and respect more? Groups like the Family Research Council? Or the fighting transgender men and women whom they obviously view as expendable in this so-called culture war? What does it say about supposed “Christian” groups who will lie and distort to spit on those defending their freedoms?